Government does not have a revenue problem government has a spending problem. Government does not have a revenue problem government has a priority problem. It is time that we begin to fine tune our focus and decide what the priority of government ought to be.

Attending that Convention and talking with those people and many others convinced me that I should become a blogger in my efforts to reform the government and uphold the integrity of the Constitution and the laws made in furtherance thereof.

Someone has to stay on the line and say no we can do this by cutting spending and reducing the size of government. That's what I was committed to doing.

People spending more of their own money on routine health care would make the system more competitive and transparent and restore the confidence between the patients and the doctors without government rationing.

I believed the only thing that could turn around this government spending and mounting debt would be if the people rose up.

Under the administration of George W. Bush you will recall federal spending grew pretty significantly. At the same time the number of people directly employed by the federal government shrank. One of the factors that explained the difference was contracting.

Clinton's successor in the White House George W. Bush was committed to expanding government spending for faith-based initiatives.

I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.

There is nothing inherently fair about equalizing incomes. If the government penalizes you for working harder than somebody else that is unfair. If you save your money but retire with the same pension as a free-spending neighbor that is also unfair.

'Hello my name is the Republican Party and I got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government.' I'd like one of them just to stand up and say that.